Quote Originally Posted by paulwoods13 View Post
I never said being a lawyer disqualified anyone. I said: "The need to understand law is far outweighed by the need to understand how to run and grow a business, IMO." I stand by that. Does Climie understand how to run and grow a business? If so, then he might be a viable candidate. But being a lawyer does not in itself mean he understands how to run and grow a business. I respectfully disagree that knowledge of the law has any particular benefit in the commissioner's role. The league can engage the services of commercial and labour lawyers for whatever legal issues it deals with.
Like I said, I don't completely disagree. There are good lawyers and bad lawyers. There are good businessmen and bad businessmen. There are good people and there are bad people. The only thing that I don't agree with is the slant that being a lawyer -- makes no difference in this/ or any equation.

"What legal knowledge is needed in that position? I'm pretty sure most of the (many) commissioners this league has had have not been lawyers."
I do not agree, and I don't believe in turning positives into negatives. History has shown us that legal knowledge has been a giant benefit to those who become leaders in business, or in the community.

Do I think that all Lawyers can run the CFL, no. Do I think all good Lawyers can run the CFL, no. Do I think a Lawyer that is a good lawyer, a good communicator, a well liked guy who has played the game, can sell the game and understands the game.....do I think he'd make a potentially good commissioner? Yes I do. Do I think that his legal background would be a benefit. Yes, I do.

With a good business plan, a good business network and a couple of outstanding VP's....I would wholeheartedly support either Mike Clemons or Jock Climie for this role.